Framing genetically modified mosquitoes in the online news and Twitter: Intermedia frame setting in the issue-attention cycle

Abstract

We investigate how the online news and Twitter framed the discussion about genetically modified mosquitoes, and the interplay between the two media platforms. The study is grounded in the theoretical frameworks of intermedia agenda setting, framing, and the issue-attention cycle and combines methods of manual and computational content analysis, and time series analysis. The findings show that the Twitter discussion was more benefit-oriented, while the news coverage was more balanced. Initially, Twitter played a leading role in framing the discussion about genetically modified mosquitoes. When the public learned about the issue, online news gained momentum and led the Twitter publics to discuss the risks of genetically modified mosquitoes. Based on the findings, we argue that the intermedia frame setting may change its direction over time, and different media outlets may be influential in leading different aspects of the conversation.

Keywords

computational social science framing issue-attention cycle genetically modified mosquitoes intermedia agenda setting intermedia frame setting time-series analysis

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ahmad

(2010) Is Twitter a useful tool for journalists? Journal of Media Practice 11: 145–155.

Augoustinos

Crabb

Shepherd

(2010) Genetically modified food in the news: Media representations of the GM debate in the UK. Public Understanding of Science 19: 98–114.

Bonfadelli

Dahinden

Leonarz

(2002) Biotechnology in Switzerland: High on the public agenda, but only moderate support. Public Understanding of Science 11: 113–130.

Brossard

Scheufele

(2013) Science, new media, and the public. Science 339: 40–41.

Büchi

(2017) Microblogging as an extension of science reporting. Public Understanding of Science 26: 953–968.

Code of Federal Regulations Title (CFR) 21 (2017) Part 25 Environmental Impact Considerations. Available at: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?CFRPart=25

Collingwood

Wilkerson

(2012) Tradeoffs in accuracy and efficiency in supervised learning methods. Journal of Information Technology & Politics 9(3): 298–318.

Crimson Hexagon (2014) Content source: Advanced. 4 December. Available at: https://help.crimsonhexagon.com/hc/en-us/articles/203511215?flash_digest=1e82480f3341d90aa3516e7993164f6f87cbf65d

David

Ong

Legara

EFT

(2016) Tweeting Supertyphoon Haiyan: Evolving functions of Twitter during and after a disaster event. PLoS ONE 11(3): e0150190.

10.

Downs

(1972) Up and down with ecology – the “issue-attention cycle.” The Public Interest 28: 38–50.

11.

Entman

(1993) Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication 43: 51–58.

12.

Entman

(2008) Theorizing mediated public diplomacy: The U.S. case. The International Journal of Press/Politics 13: 87–102.

13.

Evensen

Hoban

Woodrum

(2000) Technology and morality: Influences on public attitudes toward biotechnology. Knowledge, Technology & Policy 13(1): 43–57.

14.

Flaounas

Ali

Lansdall-Welfare

Bie

Mosdell

Lewis

et al . (2013) Research methods in the age of digital journalism: Massive-scale automated analysis of news-content—topics, style and gender. Digital Journalism 1(1): 102–116.

15.

Gamson

(1992) Talking Politics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

16.

Goffman

(1974) Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

17.

Golan

(2006) Inter-media agenda setting and global news coverage: Assessing the influence of the New York Times on three network television evening news programs. Journalism Studies 7(2): 323–333.

18.

Grzywińska

Borden

(2012) The impact of social media on traditional media agenda setting theory: The case study of Occupy Wall Street Movement in USA. In: Dobek-Ostrowska

Lodzki

Wanta

(eds) Agenda Setting: Old and New Problems in the Old and New Media. Wrocław: University of Wroclaw Press, pp. 133–155.

19.

Harder

Sevenans

Van Aelst

(2017) Intermedia agenda setting in the social media age: How traditional players dominate the news agenda in election times. The International Journal of Press/Politics 22(3): 275–293.

20.

Hopke

Simis

(2017) Discourse over a contested technology on Twitter: A case study of hydraulic fracturing. Public Understanding of Science 26(1): 105–120.

21.

Jang

Park

Lee

(2016) Round-trip agenda setting: Tracking the intermedia process over time in the ice bucket challenge. Journalism 18(10): 1293–1308.

22.

Kotsiantis

(2007) Supervised machine learning: A review of classification techniques. Informatica 31: 249–268.

23.

McCombs

(2004) Setting the Agenda: The Mass Media and Public Opinion. Cambridge: Polity Press.

24.

McCombs

Ghanem

(2001) The convergence of agenda setting and framing. In: Reese

Gandy

Grant

(eds) Framing Public Life: Perspectives on Media and Our Understanding of the Social World. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 67–81.

25.

Marques

Critchley

Walshe

(2015) Attitudes to genetically modified food over time: How trust in organizations and the media cycle predict support. Public Understanding of Science 24: 601–618.

26.

Meraz

(2011) Using time series analysis to measure intermedia agenda-setting influence in traditional media and political blog networks. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 88: 176–194.

27.

Meraz

(2016) An expanded perspective on network agenda setting between traditional media and Twitter political discussion groups in ‘everyday political talk. In: Guo

McCombs

(eds) The Power of Information Networks: New Directions for Agenda Setting. New York, NY; London: Routledge, pp. 66–87.

28.

Neuman

Guggenheim

Jang

Mo Jang

Bae

(2014) The dynamics of public attention: Agenda-setting theory meets big data. Journal of Communication 64: 193–214.

29.

Newman

(2017) Tracking the release of IPCC AR5 on Twitter: Users, comments, and sources following the release of the Working Group I summary for policymakers. Public Understanding of Science 26: 815–825.

30.

Nisbet

Huge

(2006) Attention cycles and frames in the plant biotechnology debate: managing power and participation through the press/policy connection. The International Journal of Press/Politics 11(2): 3–40.

31.

Pan

Kosicki

(2001) Framing as strategic action in public deliberation. In: Reese

Gandy

Grant

(eds) Framing Public Life: Perspectives on Media and Our Understanding of the Social World. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 33–66.

32.

Pew Research Center (2015) State of the news media 2015. Available at: http://www.journalism.org/2015/04/29/state-of-the-news-media-2015/pj_15-04-27_stateofthenewsmedia_summarygraphics_640x320-09/

33.

Pew Research Center (2016a) The modern news consumers. Available at: http://www.journalism.org/2016/07/07/pathways-to-news/

34.

Pew Research Center (2016b) The new food fights: US public divides over food science. Available at: http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/12/01/public-opinion-about-genetically-modified-foods-and-trust-in-scientists-connected-with-these-foods/

35.

Pew Research Center (2017) Science news and information today. Available at: http://www.journalism.org/2017/09/20/science-news-and-information-today/

36.

Reese

(2001) Prologue: Framing public life: A bridging model for media research. In: Reese

Gandy

Grant

(eds) Framing Public Life: Perspectives on Media and Our Understanding of the Social World. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 7–31.

37.

Reese

Gandy

Grant

(2001) Framing Public Life: Perspectives on Media and Our Understanding of the Social World. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

38.

Scheufele

(1999) Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication 49: 103–122.

39.

Shan

Regan

De Brún

Barnett

van der Sanden

Wall

et al . (2014) Food crisis coverage by social and traditional media: A case study of the 2008 Irish dioxin crisis. Public Understanding of Science 23: 911–928.

40.

Shih

Wijaya

Brossard

(2008) Media coverage of public health epidemics: Linking framing and issue attention cycle toward an integrated theory of print news coverage of epidemics. Mass Communication and Society 11: 141–160.

41.

Shwed

Bearman

(2010) The temporal structure of scientific consensus formation. American Sociological Review 75: 817–840.

42.

Van Zoonen

Toni

(2016) Social media research: The application of supervised machine learning in organizational communication research. Computers in Human Behavior 63: 132–141.

43.

Vargo

Basilaia

Shaw

(2015) Event versus issue: Twitter reflections of major news: A case study. In: Cotton

Robinson

(eds) Communication and Information Technologies Annual, vol. 9 (Studies in Media and Communications). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing, pp. 215–239.

44.

Vargo

Guo

McCombs

Shaw

(2014) Network issue agendas on Twitter during the 2012 U.S. presidential election. Journal of Communication 64(2): 296–316.

45.

Veltri

(2012) Microblogging and nanotweets: Nanotechnology on Twitter. Public Understanding of Science 22: 832–849.

46.

Ventura

Frisio

Ferrazzi

Siletti

(2017) How scary! An analysis of visual communication concerning genetically modified organisms in Italy. Public Understanding of Science 26: 547–563.

47.

(2016) Public discourse on genetically modified foods in the mobile sphere: Framing risks, opportunities, and responsibilities in mobile social media in China. In: Wei

(ed.) Mobile Media, Political Participation, and Civic Activism in Asia. Berlin: Springer, pp. 81–102.

48.

Zhou

Moy

(2007) Parsing framing processes: The interplay between online public opinion and media coverage. Journal of Communication 57: 79–98.